Haryana

Karnal

161/2014

Kamlesh Wd/o Krishan Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 161 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt. 11.06.2014

                                                               Date of decision:05.09.2016

 

Kamlesh widow of Shri Krishan Pal resident of village Gonder, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Branch Manager, Life insurance Corporation of India, Karnal.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Anil Kundu Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri C.J. Wadhwa Advocate for opposite party

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that her husband Krishan Lal (the deceased life assured)  got insured his life with the opposite party for Rs.55000/-, vide policy no.175110015 and the said policy was to mature on 28.11.2025. He paid the installments of the policy regularly. He died on 17.1.2013 due to Cancer. Thereafter, she submitted claim documents to the opposite party. Initially the officials of the opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. She visited the office of the opposite party a number of times, but no action was taken. Therefore, she got served a legal notice dated 18.05.2013, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, due to which she suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is premature; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that Krishan Pal the deceased life assured obtained policy and paid the installments. It has been submitted that neither any intimation regarding death of the life assured was given to the opposite party nor any claim was submitted for the purpose of processing. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and complaint is premature. The factum of receiving the legal notice has been denied. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party affidavit of Balihar Singh Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O5 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                 It is admitted fact that the deceased life assured had obtained life insurance policy from the opposite party and he died on 17.1.2013 during subsistence of the policy. The opposite party in the written statement pleaded that neither any intimation regarding death was given nor the claim was submitted to it. The documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 clearly indicate that intimation regarding death was given to the opposite party and the claim was also submitted. However, the complainant was asked to submit intimation letter, original death certificate and original policy bond, vide letter dated 17.3.2016, which was duly dispatched to the complainant as is evident from copy of the dispatch register Ex.O4. The complainant has not produced any document, which may indicate that she had complied with the said letters of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the opposite party so far. The claim would certainly be processed by the opposite party after submitting the documents mentioned in the letter dated 17.3.2016. Under such circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is premature.

7.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is premature. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to submit the relevant documents as mentioned by the opposite party in the letter dated 17.3.2016, the copy of which is Ex.O3 and we further direct that the opposite party would decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days of submission of the said documents by the complainant. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 5.9.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member